[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson

Amalek (Enemies of Israel) 100,000 Views on Bitchute

ICE agents pull screaming illegal immigrant influencer from car after resisting arrest

Aaron Lewis on Being Blacklisted & Why Record Labels Promote Terrible Music

Connecticut Democratic Party Holds Presser To Cry About Libs of TikTok

Trump wants concealed carry in DC.

Chinese 108m Steel Bridge Collapses in 3s, 16 Workers Fall 130m into Yellow River

COVID-19 mRNA-Induced TURBO CANCERS.

Think Tank Urges Dems To Drop These 45 Terms That Turn Off Normies


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Bethell vs. Darwin
Source: The Wanderer
URL Source: http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2005/w051201.shtml#bethell
Published: Dec 1, 2005
Author: Joseph Sobran
Post Date: 2005-12-27 09:36:14 by Phaedrus
Keywords: Bethell, Darwin
Views: 270
Comments: 18

We are now battered by so many confusing political issues traveling under the name of “science” — having to do with global warming, nuclear power, AIDS, stem-cell research, cloning, endangered species, and the teaching of evolution in public schools — that the layman may be tempted to shrug it all off and leave such matters to the experts. Well, don’t. Just grab a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery) and enjoy a good read. And some good laughs.

The author is my old friend Tom Bethell, a masterly writer who lights up daunting questions with simple explanations, apt analogies, startling facts, and often hilarious understatements. His book is in no way “against” science; on the contrary, it’s deeply respectful of scientific method, properly applied. What it exposes is the abuse of that method by various charlatans who seek political power, publicity, and government contracts. Not to mention the pleasure of duping gullible journalists and causing mass hysteria.

We are currently being urged, as Bethell notes, to panic over global warming. Unless the government enacts totalitarian measures pronto, one pundit warned, “by the end of the decade our rivers may have reached the boiling point.” That was written in 1970.

Such preposterous prophecies are now routine; social pressures play a role too and, Bethell reports, the magazine Science has rejected articles by distinguished scientists who dissent from the fashionable fear-mongering. (Notice that these allegedly imminent crises always require more government, never less.)

Like what passes for merely factual history, what passes for objective science is heavily infected by propaganda. Many things we hear every day — so often that we assume they must be established truths — are, in fact, nonsense.

The book culminates in a lively examination of that greatest of scientific errors, Darwin’s theory of evolution. In fairness to Darwin, he couldn’t have foreseen some of the difficulties modern biochemistry would present; nevertheless, he should have known better. Maybe it’s just my own narrow mind, or perhaps my deeper mammalian bigotry, but try as I may, I have never been able to perceive much resemblance between the whale and the mosquito. Even if they were the same size it would elude me.

It comes as a relief to learn that this is not a mere eccentricity of my own; Bethell explains why even some sophisticated biologists share it. The eye of the octopus is very much like the human eye, for example, yet nobody thinks men and octopi had a common ancestor with eyes; did both creatures just happen to acquire such complex organs accidentally and independently? Why is “intelligent design” out of the question?

Not only is the theory, as Bethell shows, at once tautological and incoherent; the fossil record is so devoid of evidence for evolution that the “proof” has had to be supplied by desperate speculation, logical fallacies, poor parallels, hopeful predictions, wacky experiments (on fruit flies), empty rhetoric — even outright fraud: Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos became notorious among scientists. (One advantage of experimenting on fruit flies, by the way, is that “the animal rights people don’t object.”)

If you still think evolutionism is “science,” your belief won’t survive this marvelously incisive book. And the blazing coda, on the National Institutes of Health, will convince you that we need a constitutional separation of science and state.

The book is attractively designed, but the real treat is the writing. Few men write expository prose as fine as Tom Bethell’s, every word measured, never a word wasted, always elegant in its simplicity, and so compact of expression that it almost defies summary. The same can be said of C.S. Lewis and George Orwell, but not many others.


Poster Comment:

Boldings are mine ... as science, Evolution is bunk and it's high time that this was acknowledged.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

#1. To: Phaedrus (#0)

What I'd like to see is the phrase "I don't know" become of common use again, especially in science. When it comes right down to it, that phrase is one of the hallmarks of an open and enquiring mind. People cling too readily and desperately to "theories" especially those that suit their philosophical or political agenda (like evolution) even if the theory has enormous gaping holes in it, as evolution does.

When it comes right down to it, I don't know how the universe, or earth, or man or animals came into being. Not on any scientific level, that is. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".

mehitable  posted on  2005-12-27   10:35:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: mehitable (#1)

I don't know how the universe, or earth, or man or animals came into being. Not on any scientific level, that is. But I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know".

Ditto here, but I would add one more thing:

The current "options" from which we may chose are also unacceptable as they fail to fit the available evidence.

Evolution is fine as a *process of how things go forward* - speciation has been observed - but cannot explain a "beginning" to anyone's satisfaction at present.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   1:12:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: mirage (#3)

Evolution is fine as a *process of how things go forward* - speciation has been observed - but cannot explain a "beginning" to anyone's satisfaction at present.

I'm not aware (i.e. I don't believe) that speciation has been observed. Would you please enlighten me?

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28   11:44:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Phaedrus (#6)

I'm not aware (i.e. I don't believe) that speciation has been observed. Would you please enlighten me?

This TalkOrigins archive has some observed examples with citation and documentation in the event that you'd like to check their facts. A "speciation event" is said to have occured when a segment of a population can no longer produce offspring with the original stock. "Races" can interbreed but "species" cannot produce offspring which can reproduce (like mules) and often times, "species" cannot interbreed at all.

Examples (from the FAQ webpage) follow:

Example 1:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example 2:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example 3:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example 4:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

These are just a few. You might want to check the webpage for additional details. Most of the speciation events involve plants.

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   15:52:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: mirage (#7)

A "speciation event" is said to have occured when a segment of a population can no longer produce offspring with the original stock.

Thanks. I'm sorry, but this seems to me to be a highly deficient way of testing the validity of the Theory of Evolution that is heavily dependent upon definitions. I would think it necessary that a new species be not only able to breed among themselves but would exhibit new, different and "advantageous" attributes. There is no indication that the "new" species is in any way different from the old save that they cannot breed with them.

I'm sure you see the point. How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

And I've "deconstructed" some of the Talk Origins material in past years and have little respect for it, to say the very least.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28   16:25:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Phaedrus (#8)

How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

It doesn't have to. When something like that happens, it will be observed. The important thing about Evolution is that it is a process and we have not yet observed all parts of it. Over time, eventually, there will be an event that is observed.

A process is made of sub-parts, each with their own beginning and end. We are still mapping out how change occurs. We know THAT change occurs, we just don't know with absolute 100% certainty to what extent. The "change happens" argument has been proven to most people's satisfaction. The "extent of change" argument has not been proven to most people's satisfaction.

Just like nobody saw the Big Bang or Creation, people still take stock in it, right? For me, Evolution is an ongoing process that explains how things are expected to *work going forward* in a satisfactory manner. Nobody has yet to see a fruit fly become an elephant, which would be highly unlikely anyhow, but, assuming everything lines up properly, changes in an organism can be tracked over time. Likely there will be surprises and things that nobody thought of. That data will have to be factored in as well.

Evolution does not, however, give a beginning other than "common ancestor" which scientists are attempting to prove using gene sequencing (which should provide some rather shocking data) and there is no satisfactory explanation other than "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" from any of a bazillion possible sources currently. One may as well just throw a dart at a list and pick one.

As for the validity of things; that's why we check sources and look at things critically. Everyone has a tendency to get excited and cut corners or make bogus claims. Figuring out when that happens and what is wrong with those claims is a good way to figure out what is true and what is BS.

Is that sufficient?

mirage  posted on  2005-12-28   17:10:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 9.

#10. To: mirage (#9)

Q: How does this highly technical definition show that a mosquito becomes something else, let alone a bat or an elephant?

A: It doesn't have to. When something like that happens, it will be observed. The important thing about Evolution is that it is a process and we have not yet observed all parts of it. Over time, eventually, there will be an event that is observed ...

Is that sufficient?

To summarize without exaggerating inordinately, while it has not been shown that one species evolves into another, you take it on faith that it will be shown. I'm sorry, mirage, this is not science.

Phaedrus  posted on  2005-12-28 19:33:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]